Thursday, March 1, 2012

Proponents claim that legalizing assisted suicide will keep the government out of people's lives. The opposite is true.

Fact check: In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, legalization has allowed the Oregon Health Plan, a government entity, to steer people to suicide. The most well known cases involve Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup. Each wanted treatment. The Plan denied treatment and steered them to suicide by offering to pay for the suicides. Neither Wagner nor Stroup saw this as a celebration of their control. Wagner said: "I’m not ready to die." Stroup said: "This is my life they’re playing with." See See Susan Donaldson James, "Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon," ABC News, August 6, 2008; and "Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions," KATU TV, July 30, 2008.

2. The Initiative Allows Someone Else to Administer the Lethal Dose

Proponents claim that only the patient may administer the lethal dose. This is not true.

Fact check: The initiative, H.3884, states that patients "may" self-administer the lethal dose. There is no language stating that administration “must” be by self-administration. "Self-administer" is also a specially defined term that allows someone else to administer the lethal dose to the patient. See here.

3. An Heir is Allowed to Witness the Lethal Dose Request

Proponents claim that the lethal dose request form must be "independently witnessed" by two people. This is not true.

Fact check: The initiative, Sections 3 and 21, provides that one of two witnesses on the lethal dose request form cannot be a patient’s heir or other person who will benefit financially from the patient's death; the other witness can be an heir or other person who will benefit financially from the death.

4. Substantial Compliance

Proponents claim that the initiative has "strict safeguards" to protect patients. The initiative, however, only requires "substantial compliance" with its provisions. Section 18(1)(a) states: "A person who substantially complies in good faith with provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be in compliance with this chapter."

5.Assisted Suicide is a Recipe for Elder Abuse

Proponents claim that the initiative is safe, which is not true.

Fact check: The initiative does not require witnesses at the death. Without disinterested witnesses, the opportunity is created for an heir, or someone else who will benefit financially from the death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without the patient's consent. Even if he struggled, who would know?

6. Patients are not Necessarily Dying

Proponents imply that the initiative only applies to people in their "final days." This is untrue.

Proponents claim that people with disabilities are not at risk from legalization of assisted suicide, which is untrue.

Fact check: Disability rights groups such as Not Dead Yet oppose assisted suicide as a threat to their lives. In Oregon and Washington, official government forms for assisted suicide acts in those states promote disability as a reason to commit suicide.[1] People with disabilities are thereby devalued. In 2009, there was a proposed assisted suicide bill in New Hampshire that squarely applied to people with disabilities.[2] If the initiative were to be passed now, people with disabilities see themselves as potentially next in line under a future expansion of that law. As noted above, there has already been a proposal in Washington state to expand its law to direct euthanasia for non-terminal people.

* * *

[1] See e.g. "Oregon Death with Dignity Act Attending Physician Follow-up Form," question 15, providing seven suggested answers as to why there was a lethal dose request. Some of the answers are written in terms of disability being an acceptable reason to kill yourself. These answers include: "[A] concern about . . . the loss of control of bodily functions."